Sub: Application under Section 197 of
the Criminal Procedure Code and 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for according sanction to prosecute the personnel
holding the Office of the Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar of Section 1-B of the Supreme Court at the material time
for disobeying the law, with intent to cause un-repairable severe injury to my fundamental rights, under influence or otherwise.

MILAP CHORARIA

B-5/52, Sector-7,

Rohini,

New Delhi-110 085 Dated 27th July 2004

Registered with A/D

To,

Hon’ble Mr. R. C. Lahoti,

Chief Justice of India,

Supreme Court of India,

New Delhi-110001

Sub: Application under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code and 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 for according sanction to prosecute the personnel holding the Office of the Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar
of Section 1-B of the Supreme Court at the material time for disobeying the law, with intent to cause un-repairable severe
injury to my fundamental rights, under influence or otherwise.

Hon’ble Lordship,

1. That under Article 146 clause (1) of the Constitution all officers or servants of the Supreme Court are appointed by
the Chief Justice of India or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he may directs. Therefore, Hon’ble Chief Justice
of India is competent authority to receive and take appropriate decision on this application.

2.

That Supreme Court is not empowered to delegate
its Judicial Powers to any one, exclusively exercisable by a Division Bench under Rule 1 Order VII and / or Rule 8 under Order
XXXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 in respect of application for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.

3 That from the entire Supreme Court Rules, 1966, neither Registrar or even not a single Judge (except in certain specific
cases and vacation Judge, where Judicial order not necessary) have been delegated to exercise judicial powers of a Court,
exclusively exercisable by a Division Bench under Rule 1 of Order VII of the Supreme Court. It can be proved from the various
provisions from the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which are referred in detail as follows:

(1) For instance under Rule 1 of Part I, Order VI, of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, the powers of the Court
have been assigned to exercise by the Supreme Court Officers, namely Registrar in the following matters, related to administrative
in nature:

(1) Applications for discovery and inspection.

(2) Applications for delivery of interrogatories.

(3) Applications for substituted service or for dispensing with service of notice of the appeal on any of
the respondents to the appeal under rule 10 of Order XV.

(4) Applications for time to plead, for production of documents, and generally relating to the conduct of
cause, appeal under rule 10 of Order XV.

(5) Applications for leave to take documents out of the custody of the court.

(6) Questions arising in connection with the payment of court fees.

(7) Applications by third party parties for return of the documents.

(8) Applications for grant of copies of records to third parties.

(9) Applications for the issue of certified regarding any excess court fee paid under a mistake.

(10) Applications for requisitioning records from the custody of any court or other authority.

from the aforesaid list this will be ample clear that wherever possibility or scope of requirements of any
orders relating to work other than administrative in nature, Registrar was directed to refer the matter to Court, as appears
under item no. (12) and item no. (15).

(2) Under Rule 2 of Part I, Order VI, of the Supreme Court Rules 1966, under which the powers of the Court
in relation to the matters may be exercised by a Single Judge in Chambers, where purely judicial orders are not required relating
to matters namely:

Applications by advocate on record for leave to withdraw.

Applications for leave to compromise or discontinue an appeal (where permission was granted to use as an indigent person).

Applications for striking out or adding party or for intervention in a suit, appeal or other proceeding.

Applications for separate trials of causes of action.

Applications for separate trials to avoid embarrassment.

Rejection of plaint.

Applications for setting down for judgment in default of written statement.

Applications for better statement of claim or defence.

Applications for particulars.

Applications for striking out any matter in a pleading.

Applications for amendment of pleading and for enlargement of time to amend any pleading.

Applications for tax bills returned by the Taxing Officer.

Applications for review of taxation.

Applications for enlargement or abridgment of time except where the time is fixed by the court and except applications
for condonation of delay in filing Special Leave Petitions.

Applications for issue of commissions.

(Omitted)

Applications for assignment of security Bonds.

Questions arising in taxation referred by Taxing Officer.

Applications for orders against clients for payment of costs.

Applications for taxation and delivery of bill of costs and for delivery by an advocate of documents and papers.

Applications for registration of advocates as advocates on records.

Applications for leave to proceed as an indigent person

Applications for grant of bail where the petitioner is confined in jail.

Applications for stay of execution of a sentence or order in criminal proceedings.

Applications by accused person in custody for being produced before the court at the hearing of appeal.

Consent applications in interlocutory matters.

Applications by accused persons for engagements of advocate under rule 25 of Order Xxi.

Fixing the remuneration of a guardian.

(Omitted).

(30) (Omitted).

(3) Under Order VII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 even single Judge is empowered in relations to
matters of very urgent in nature or where scope of order in violation of principle of non-arbitrariness is not exists, otherwise
this categorically stated that "Subject to the other provisions of these rules every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard
by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice". The single Judge is empowered in relations
to matters are described as follows:

(1) Special Leave Petition arising out of the decisions or orders of a Single Judge of a High Court or of
a Member of Tribunal sitting singly.

(2) Bail applications.

(3) Applications for substitution other than those falling under rule 1(15) of Order VI.

(4) Summons for non-prosecution.

(5) Applications for exemption from paying court fees.

(6) Applications for extension of time for paying court fees or for furnishing undertaking, bank guarantee
or security.

(7) Applications for disposal of an appeal in terms of a compromise petition.

(8) Applications for withdrawal of special leave petitions, appeals or writ petition.

(4) That under Order III Rule 2, the Chief Justice of India may assign and Registrar may, with the approval
of the Chief Justice, delegate to a Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar, any function required by these rules to be exercised
by the Registrar. From the aforesaid provisions the assignments of the powers would be relating to "functions", not relating
with the judicial powers.

Under Part 1 Order 1 Rule 2 sub-rule (1)(g) "court" and "this court" means the Supreme Court of India. From
the aforesaid definition Supreme Court Officers are not defined as "court" or "this court". Article 145 of the Constitution
provides under Clause (1) that "subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament the Supreme Court may from time to
time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court including"
under sub-clause (c) "make rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by
Part III". From the aforesaid provision this is ample clear that Article 145(1)(c) of the Constitution empowered to make "rules
for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the "Court" and proceedings in the "Court", which means, Judicial Powers
of the "court" cannot be delegated to Supreme Court Officers namely Registrar.

4. That Registrar (Judicial) of Supreme Court under instigation from the Assistant/Joint Registrar (Section
1-B) and / or private respondents named in Writ Petitions filed by me for protection of my fundamental rights, considered
himself having armed with Judicial Powers under Rule 1 to 10 including Rule 5 of Order XVIII under Rule 11 under Part IV ORDER
XXXV substituted by GSR 407 w. e. f. 20.12.1997, under Supreme Court Rules 1966, and disobeyed his official duties to injure
my rights for the benefit and gain of some one else, illegally and in violation of the Constitution equated himself with a
Court, refused to receive Writ Petitions filed by me for enforcement of fundamental rights, deciding its admissibility, as
facts stated hereinafter.

(1) That on 4th September 2002 I have I filed a Writ Petition (Civil) vide filing Diary No. 17454/2002,
seeking protection of my fundamental rights severally infringed under Nexus between Politics-Bureaucratic-Nexus and embracement
of large number of Judicial Officers and renowned Advocates. Since the matter referred in this Writ Petition is also referred
in a subsequent Petition, copy of which will be annexed with this application at the appropriate paragraph. Therefore, I crave
leave to file copy of Writ Petition (Civil) No. D-17454/2002, if so desired or I may be so directed to file.

(2) That I filed the said Writ Petition seeking protection of my fundamental rights infringed under Politics-Crime-Nexus,
which was refused to receive by the Registrar (Judicial) under instigation from the then Assistant Registrar (Section 1-B)
(who was promoted subsequently as Joint Registrar (Section 1-B), in violation of Rule 8 Order XXXV and Rule 1 of Order VII
of the Supreme Court, by misusing the provision of Rule 5 of Order XVIII under Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and accordingly
I was informed by Memo letter No. Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17454/2002 dated 22.10.2002 by Registered Post under signature
of (Section Officer) I-B, "that Ld. Registrar (J) on 12.10.2002 when was pleased to lodge the said Writ Petition Under Order
XVIII, Rule 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as the said Petition does not disclose any reasonable cause to the received for
its registration" . In violation of Constitutional provision Rule 5 of Order XVIII was applied by the Registrar (Judicial)
to cause severe injury to my Fundamental Rights, including rights to remedy or justice, and by disobeying his official duty,
thus committed a crime punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Photocopy of the said Memo letter No. Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 17454/2002 dated 22.10.2002 is annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure "A".

(3) hat after such a situation on 2nd November 2002 I filed Civil Writ Petition No. D-3098 of
2002 against the Office of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India by Registered Post. It was returned by the
Office of the Respondent No. 2 through Memo Letter No. D-3098/2002/X dated 24th December 2002 with reply interalia
that "no action can be taken on it as it is not in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules (Extract enclosed)",
which referred the proviso under Rule 6(1) under ORDER X (DOCUMENTS), under the Supreme Court Rules 1966, as the Petitioner
not presented the Petition in-person on the filing counter. From the Rule XXXV of Supreme Court Rules 1966 (specifically meant
for Petitions Under Article 32 of the Constitution) Registrar returned it by disobeying his official duty, committed offence
punishable Under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code. Photocopy of Memo Letter No. D-3098/2002/X dated 24th December
2002 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "B" .

(4) That On 29th October 2003, I filed another Writ Petition (Civil) under Diary No. 22474 of
2003, containing facts more elaborately relating to severely infringed of my fundamental rights under politics-bureaucratic-crime-Nexus
and embracement of large number of Judicial Officers and renowned Advocates. A copy of the Petition part of Volume I of the
said Writ Petition, containing facts, Question of Law, Grounds and Prayers is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "VOLUME
–I’, separately.

(5) That On 10th November 2003 dealing Officer / Clerk of the Section 1-B of the Supreme Court
informed that Petition is of the Criminal by nature, as such required a Letter from me to that effect. On the very same day
I clarified by a Letter that the Writ Petition is of the Civil in nature. Copy of the said Letter is annexed herewith Volume-I
and marked as Annexure "C".

(6) Thereafter, matter was sent, by Section 1-B to Section X, where it was came to my notice that a long
list of alleged errors of total item Nos. 22 were referred in my matter. In which one issue was referred that V.I. P.’s
were made Party Respondents. I was asked for each such Respondent to deposit Court Fee of Rs.10/-. When I asked to Assistant
Registrar of Section X to name the V. I. P., Party Respondents? Then Assistant Registrar of Section-X, returned the file to
Section 1-B, where the said alleged error was corrected by directing me just to deposit deficit stamp of Rs.10/- as shortage
of Process fee.

(7) However, finally I received Memo Letter Memo Letter D. No. 5610/2003/X dated 29th November
2003, in which 22 alleged errors were referred. Out of 22 errors I corrected mostly as far as possible for me, and referred
the reasons for not correction for the rest by Letter dated 15th December 2003. For instance under Item No. 22, I was directed
to Change the Writ Petition as PIL, which I replied that "Since the Writ Petition is with regards to infringement of my personal
fundamental rights as such I cannot add the word PIL". Photocopies of the said Memo Letter D. No. 5610/2003/X dated 29th
November 2003, my Letter dated 15th December 2003 are annexed herewith under Volume-I and marked as Annexure "D" and "E" respectively.

(8) That after 15th December 2003, I was expecting that matter, may come up for preliminary hearing
at any time thereafter. When I enquired from Section X, I was informed that file was sent back to Section 1-B for the final
examination of the corrections made by me. As per my knowledge, thereafter file never come back to Section-X where it was
withhold for the reasons best known to Joint Registrar of Section 1-B. However, on 23rd February 2004 I sent a
Press Statement to about 500 Newspapers, TVChannels, Media person from India and abroad, posted the same at the various Boards
of discussions E-groups. Possibly under the impact of the same and after withholding the matter for more than four months
in the garb of "Under Scrutiny" letter No. D. No. 5610/2003/X dated 19th April 2004 was sent by Section-X which
was delivered me on 24th April 2004, directing me thereby "that the prayers, which have already disposed of / decided
by this Hon’ble Court are required to be deleted" and "You are therefore, requested to amend the Writ Petition accordingly
within a week from receipt of this letter failing which action contemplated under the rule will be initiated", from which
criminal conspiracy to get refused to receive my said Writ Petition, was appearing clearly.

(9) Thereafter, on 15th June 2004 I received Memo letter No. D. No. 5610/003/X dated 7th
June 2004 from the Assistant Registrar (Judl) informing thereby that "The Writ Petition above mentioned filed you was placed
before the Ld. Registrar (J-I) on 26.5.2004, when he was pleased to decline the same as it does not disclose any reasonable
cause upon which it can be received for listing before the Hon’ble Court under Order XVIII Rule 5 of S. C. R. 1966."
Such finding was completely false, flimsy and knowingly taken by the Registrar (Judicial) by disobeying his official duties,
in violation of the Constitutional provisions, to protect the vested interests of Mafia elements, having close Nexus with
Powerful politicians-bureaucrats-Advocates. Photocopy of the Memo letter No. D. No. 5610/003/X dated 7th June 2004
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "F".

5. That aforesaid unconstitutional decisions were taken by the Registrar (Judicial) in aforesaid Two Writ
Petition (Civil) No. D-17454/2002 and No. D-22474/2003 disobeying the law with clear intention to injure me by depriving me
from my fundamental rights to remedy or justice and taken under influence to protect the interests of Mafia working under
nexus with Powerful politician of India, and support from several renowned Advocates.

6. That conduct of the Joint Registrar of Section 1-B and Registrar (Judicial) were knowingly disobeying
the law with intention to cause severe un-repairable injury to my fundamental rights to protect the illegal rights of the
respective Mafia, and such conduct have causes serious damages to efficacy of and faith upon the judiciary, and was a crime
punishable under Section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

7. Therefore, I humbly submit that sanction should be accorded to prosecute the Registrar (Judicial) and
Joint Registrar (Section 1-B) of the Supreme Court having holds respective offices at the material time, whose name were not
disclosed by the Supreme Court Registry, as such could not be mentioned here. For this purpose, I am sending copies of this
application to Registrar (Judicial) and Joint Registrar (Section 1-B) with request that if he were holds such Offices, the
copies of this application they may kindly forward to the personnel, who holds such offices at the material time of respective
orders were passed by the Registrar(Judicial).